Cert el que dius. Perdó.
Ara pensant-m'ho millor, crec que lo millor seria deixar sols l'area:amenity=bench a l'àrea i fer un node amb amenity=bench al seu mig.
Així quedaria de forma similar a com es mapejen els objectes area:power i area:highway.

Ara quan pugui faré aquest canvi amb aquests bancs del Pati i uns altres per Valls.

Sí, està triplicat a propòsit, perquè no sé com etiquetar-los.
Aquests bancs són ben llargs i m'agradaria mapejar-los com a àrees, ja que posar-hi un sol node al seu mig semblaria indicar com si no fossin tan grans. Les àrees d'aquests bancs surten representades en el mapa tipogràfic de l'ICGC (són els rectangles vermells).

Com els etiquetaries tu?

Bones! Gràcies per l'avís! Cert, l'etiqueta ele no té sentit que hi sigui a la relació. Se'm deu haver colat quan he fet Ctrl+C Ctrl+V des del node admin_centre cap a la relació per les etiquetes dels noms i els refs.

He tret l'etiqueta amb aquest changetset:
changeset/174641079

Perdó per l'enorme bounding box del changeset. Crec que he modificat vies que eren membres d'una ruta de bus internacional

¡Buenas!
Gracias por el aviso. He rectificado las etiquetas en este changeset:
changeset/172579097#map=13/41.29251/1.24043

Creo que no me he dejado ninguna, así que no deberían de saltar más avisos del Osmose en referencia a esto.
De nuevo, ¡gracias por avisar!

There's nothing wrong with mapping trees as individual nodes if there are a lot of trees in an area.

Groups of trees (either natural=tree_row or natural=tree_group) are OK when you've got not-very-precise imagery or information regarding the exact placement of those trees. But when information is precise enough, then it's better to map individual trees to add the most accurate data to the map.

Hello! Thank you for contributing to OpenStreetMap!

Sorry to come talk to you about this changeset of 4 months ago, but I've reverted it and re-done it in my changesets 169914060 (changeset/169914060) and 169914062 (changeset/169914062)*

The reason is that the buildings you've added in this changeset are very poorly drawn.

You seemed to have used exclusively satellite imagery (more specifically, Esri World Imagery) for drawing these buildings, which it isn't a bad thing on itself, but has caused many buildings to be incorrect.

Drawing buildings from satellite imagery is not easy, as shadows, colours and perspectives of the imagery and nearby trees or vegetation can make determining the presence and/or outlines of buildings very difficult.

In your commit, the vast majority of the buildings you've drawn are either incomplete (your shape does not match the real building, or it matches only a part of the building), oversimplified (you've drawn a complex building as a simple square or rectangle, when the real shape is more complicated than that) or outright incorrect (you've added several buildings very close together when in reality it's a singular building with a complex shape).

Over Catalonia, there are several satellite imageries available, like Mapbox Satellite, Bing, PNOA Spain, ICGC Ortophoto and Esri. Don't limit yourself to just using one, change to others if you have doubts on what you are seeing. What in one satellite imagery is hard to see, it may look clearer in another one.

Also, in Catalonia there's the ICGC Topographical Map layer which you can trace over and get the shapes of the buildings and other details. And in Spain, there's also the Spanish Cadastral layer that offers accurate building outlines. These layers are not perfect though (especially the ICGC Topo over rural areas), so you'll need to verify them with satellite imagery.

All of these layers are available to use as imagery in JOSM and other editors. Depending on your configuration, in JOSM you may need to go to the imagery settings.

Consider using these tips next time you add buildings from satellite imagery, by using several satellite layers you'll get better results than with just one.

Happy mapping!

* This is in two changesets because I've added many other things that didn't fit into a single changeset

I don't have plans to delete these tags (at least not for now), as they don't seem to break anything and they don't annoy me that much as to go out of my way and go delete them right now (aside from being logically contradictory if we look it from a tag meaning perspective). But I will delete them when I finish the ways.

The only propose of your noexit tags is explicitly tagging for the router (osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_router) because you are only using them to appease the OSMI validator. And actually, this seems like a validator that's acting weird because it only flagged the four gates that you've modified, and not the many other unfinished ways that are scattered in this neighbourhood. This behaviour should be reported as a bug instead of adding tags to mitigate it.

The wiki page of the noexit=yes tag (noexit=yes) also provides guidelines that conflict with your tagging:
> It must be ignored by routing (GPS).
> ## When not to map (...) It's also not a substitute for the tag barrier when=* the road is stopped by a barrier or wall.
> ## Alternatives (...) If you wish to indicate that a way does continue but that you have been unable to map it for some reason use fixme=continue (or any other text) to show that a way goes further but is not mapped yet. This may often be a very short stub from a road indicating the start of a path or side road.

Also, it's confusing that you say adding barriers and accessways is "nonbeneficial micromapping" since you're adding these noexit tags to help a routing software on barriers and accessways.

This looks a lot to me like "tagging for the router".

The reason why some gates have ways behind them and others don't in this neighbourhood, is because some paths can be seen from aerial and/or street-level imagery.
I've added only the paths that can be seen from the imagery. I haven't added paths that I haven't been able to see from imagery (even if, in almost all the cases, these paths are simple B-lines from the street gate to the building).
Should I (or someone else) in the future have more imagery, then I'll complete these paths (in fact, now that I think about it, a fixme=continue tag might be a good idea to add to these gates, will do that when I can).

There are many other houses nearby with partially or completely missing entry ways that you haven't yet tagged with noexit=yes, like for example house numbers 147, 149, 157, 159, 163, 173, 179, 183, 185, 191, 193, 195, 197, 199, 209, 211, 213, 215 or 217, among others.

Adding noexit=yes tags to barrier=gate nodes doesn't make sense because:
A) A gate is not the end of a way, is an entrance to an area or property or a split between areas/properties (in this case, is the entrance to a private home). If this node would impede the way from continue onward, then it will be a fence or a wall with no gate nor entrance, and it would be tagged as such.
B) The vast majority of the nearby houses (including the two where you've added the noexit tags) have two (or sometimes more) entrances: one for vehicles and the other being the main walking entrance. So, technically speaking, there is no noexit situation because there is an exit through the other entrance (or manoeuvrer and turn around at the front garden or directly inside the house, but that's not directly applicable to OSM routing).

And if you argue that these gates are technically noexit situations because the way on the other side isn't (yet) mapped to OSM, then I assure you that I would have mapped the gates differently if the way didn't continue on the other side (because otherwise it would be a disused: or an abandoned: gate).

Hello! Thank you for contributing to OpenStreetMap!

In this commit, you've added noexit=yes tags to four gates of houses.
This tag doesn't make sense here. Why did you add it?

Hello! Thank you for your contributions!

In this edit, you added a footpath way that goes through the backyard of the house near C/Sagrada Família, but then crosses a hedge barrier and goes to the backyard of another house.

way/1392655165

This seems incorrect. I do not live there, but for what it can be seen from the near Camí del Fornás and from aerial and topographical imagery, there is no way to cross that hedge barrier. The two backyards are two different and separate backyards with no apparent connection.

Also, you've mapped this way (and others within the backyards) with footway=sidewalk (which is incorrect because this way is not besides a road) and motor_vehicle=no (which is unnecessary; otherwise it would be another type of highway).

Do you have any sources that point to the hedge crossing being there?

Bon dia!
Sip, les dues etiquetes són el mateix, gràcies per l'avís, una dols dues sobra. M'he equivocat en escriure-les, perdona per les molèsties.

Els noms dols etiquetes venen de tal i com es mencionen a geovalls i a altres documents i recursos de l'Ajuntament, que surten com "bens" i "masies" (fixa't que els dos noms són en plural, inclús quan es refereixen a un sol element).
L'etiqueta "masia" és una equivocació meva i hauria de ser "masies".

He corregit les etiquetes errònies en aquest changeset:
changeset/166602337#map=19/41.284978/1.263849

Bones! Benvingut a OpenStreetMap! Moltes gràcies per tunes contribucions!

No sabia que el Carrer del Call també se l'hi diu Corraló dels gats. Sempre està bé aprendre coses noves!

En tun changeset has comentat que falta d'etiquetar-hi uns escalons al començant del carrer que connecta amb el Carrer dels Jueus; però aquests escalons ja estan mapejats a OSM. Estan posats com tres trams separats d'escales, amb vies peatonals del mig. És possible que no els hagis vist perquè són força curts. Si no recordo malament, els vaig mapejar en base al mapa topogràfic de l'ICGC.

El Carrer del Call està dividit en 9 vies; enumerant-les d'esquerra a dreta, aquestes vies són les següents:
- La primera és el petit tram que connecta amb el C/Esglesia fins al començament de la casa-pont.
- La segona via és la que passa per sota de la casa-pont.
- La tercera via és el tram més llarg del carrer, al descobert i sense ser escales, que és la via que has editat en aquest commit.
- La quarta via és el tram superior d'escales
- La cinquena és un tram enmig de les escales
- La sisena és el tram intermedi d'escales
- La sèptima és un altre tram entre les escales.
- L'octava via és el tram inferior d'escales.
- I la novena via és el tram final que connecta amb el C/Jueus.

Els escalons a què et refereixes són les vies 4, 6 i 8 ja existents o són unes altres que no hi són al mapa?

També has afegit les etiquetes tunnel=yes i layer=-1 al tram que està al descobert en lloc del tram que passa per sota la casa-pont.

Ha estat això un error o han fet modificacions recents que han tapat el carrer? (Fa uns quants mesos que no hi tombo per aquest carrer, així que corregeix-me si m'equivoco).

Thanks to you for creating the proposal and the tagging scheme!

I find it very useful to add information about sensory accommodations to OSM
(mainly because I'm autistic, and I find some of these accommodations pretty useful for myself).

And you can tell that because the check_date dates in my first commit were from 2 months ago lol
(I had the tags ready from the 1st round of voting, but I waited until now that the proposal has been approved to upload the tags)

I don't think that the generic fuel name is written anywhere near the pumps in Repsol gas stations, everything is filled with the branded fuel logos and colours and such. Although, to be honest, I don't look them much when I go there xD

For now, I've been able to find more info online. On Repsol's website, they talk about Repsol Blue+ as their version of Adblue fuel, which means that Blue+ is equivalent to fuel:adblue.
Also on their website, they seem to say that Repsol's "Diesel e+" is their basic diesel, and the "Diesel e+10" their super enhanced diesel, which seems to align with the tags fuel:diesel and fuel:GTL_diesel respectively (reading from the wiki Key:fuel:* tag page)

Besides, the fuel:diesel and fuel:GTL_diesel tags do also appear in other Repsol gas station throughout the city that originally came from a 2010 import (that I should have looked before tagging my way... ups). I'll add these values and replace the old ones in my upcoming commit

Heyas!
Yep, you are right that these tags are unique and not great.

For adding fuel tags, I used a combination of the ones that are in the JOSM built-in preset and some taginfo search as guidance. For "fuel:blue+", "fuel:diesel_e+" and "fuel:diesel_e+10" I assumed that these are Repsol-exclusive fuel types whose name/type is this, or industry-wide ways of referring about them, so I added them as such.

I'm doing edits on other gas stations in Valls, so I'll revise the fuel tags of this station and the others, and I'll try to fit them more common values.
If I don't find a taginfo equivalence, I'll note it in a fixme= or make a nearby note.

Thanks for the heads-up!

Bones! Gràcies per la rectificació de l'etiqueta waylet.
No obstant, he guipat que has eliminat el shop=yes de la gasolinera.

Aquest shop=yes prové del preset de Transport > Cotxe > Benzinera del JOSM, i l'he posat per indicar que aquesta benzinera té una petita botigueta a on es poden comprar snacks i accessoris de manteniment per al cotxe.

Quina etiqueta suggereixes usar en lloc de la shop= per marcar aquesta tenda (si és que es pot marcar d'alguna manera)?

Would it be nice to have an international whole-world standard for traffic sign tagging? Yes! It would be very nice indeed!

Unfortunately, such an international standard is very unlikely to ever happen.
yopaseopor has tried many international traffic sign proposals, which got rejected or never came to fruition for many reasons.

A month or so ago, yopaseopor released for comments a proposal for using "traffic_sign:id" for the national traffic sign codes (https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/new-proposal-about-traffic-sign-international-code-mapping/125438). The results were mixed, some liked it, but others opposed it because it will conflict with their local systems; and it caused a big and long debate on the forum.

If something as simple as moving a single tag, caused this much of a debate, then discussing an entire international traffic sign tagging system is a literally impossible mission that will lead to absolutely nowhere.

These are the reasons why I think that international standards in the world of traffic signs are futile. Taking into consideration all the signs, organisation systems of these signs, exceptions to those systems, icons, and placement of everything is a colossal task.
And this is why I think that regional/national traffic sign tagging schemes are, for now, the way to go, because the people from said region/territory that know about it can steer it into the right direction, and it will not be necessary to consider all the weird edge-cases of the entire world.

And yes, you are absolutely correct that many countries, not only in Europe, but in the entire world, have very similar traffic signs, thanks to the Vienna Convention. But this doesn't mean that everybody who follows the convention has identical signs, every country has a different combo of symbols, fonts, text, icons, colours and even shapes. And also, the Vienna Convention goes out the window in the destination sign situation, where every country is a whole different world, so the convention can do very little with roundabouts and intersection signs.

An international debate and/or international proposal for how we should map Catalan traffic signs only in Catalonia is nonsense. Catalonia-specific things should be proposed, debated and approved by users in Catalonia only; it doesn't make sense to involve other mappers from the other side of the world that have no idea of how things work in Catalonia.

If there were two or more competing local standards, with no way to set things clear of which to use, an internation debate could be a tiebreaker to solve the situation; but that's not the case here. Catalonia had no local traffic sign standard before, we are creating one. As easy as that.

Other countries and territories in the world do also have their own ways of tagging and mapping traffic signs, like Finland, for example (osm.wiki/Finland/Traffic_signs#Traffic_sign_mapping_in_Finland). Do you also chase the commits of every new Finland traffic sign that gets added to OSM?

Regarding the fact that only users are working on this system, I get your point. But you may also know that not so many people are interested in traffic signs, so there's nothing that we can do about this. I'm not a fan of taking people hostage and forcing them to read the several manuals of Spanish and Catalan traffic sign specifications, so I'm afraid that this situation may not change in the near future... xD At least, two people actively working for a standard is better than one.

And in every debate and conversation that we've had on the Catalan community Telegram group chat so far, no one has opposed this standard so far.
And honestly, the only one here that seems to have objections and complaints about this standard is you. And (no offence) but you are not part of the Catalan community, so the number of opposing people goes back down to 0.

In OSM there are many things that are regional and national-specific.
For example: in values above 2 of admin_level= tag, the organisation varies greatly country per country. Check this massive table about how admin_level works in different countries: boundary=administrative#Table_:_Admin_level_for_all_countries 

It makes no sense to involve the international community in something that is Catalonia-specific. But still, if international feedback comes our way, we'll consider it and implement it if we find it useful.

It's true that debates in changeset comments are hard, but again, here's the forum thread where we can discuss this better:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposta-senyals-transit-catalunya/127587

And here is the WIP wiki page of this standard (everything that I told you about the tagging system is also here):
osm.wiki/User:Yopaseopor/Proposta_senyals_tr%C3%A0nsit_Catalunya

Heyas again!
I don't get what is your objective in chasing every commit that I do and recriminating every new tag that I add.
Are you a traffic sign hater that doesn't want any traffic signs in OSM whatsoever? Are you a traffic sign enthusiast that wants to learn what every new sign added to OSM is?

As I told you in the previous commit, this push of traffic signs that I'm doing lately is for the Catalan traffic sign tagging system.

Fortunately for you, now this tagging system has a forum discussion page here where we are working out the final bits of the standard:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposta-senyals-transit-catalunya/127587

And the wiki documentation page is being worked on here:
osm.wiki/User:Yopaseopor/Proposta_senyals_tr%C3%A0nsit_Catalunya

The wiki documentation contains a big table with a bunch of Spanish and Catalan destination signs and examples of how they are tagged. International traffic signs are also shown as additional samples (despite this tagging scheme only covering Catalonia for now).

As you can see, the tags for marking the destinations are based of the tags used in the Relation:destination_sign (osm.wiki/Relation:destination_sign#Tags). In our standard we use tags like "destination", "distance", "colour:back", "colour:text", "colour:arrow", "destination:ref", "destination:symbol"...

If the destination sign is structured like a list of more than one destination, we add numbers to the end of the above tags (":1" or nothing for the first and main destination, ":2" for the second, ":3" for the third, and so on).

If a destination text is too long for a single line, and it occupies more than one line in the sign, we place each line in a ":a" and ":b" tags. This also helps for references and icons where there are more than one in a single line, where they also get the letter-at-the-end-of-the-number treatment.

On roundabout signs, where there's a list of destinations per each exit of the roundabout, we place the direction of the exit before the number, via the tags ":through:", ":slight_right:", ":right:", ":sharp_right:", ":u_turn:", ":sharp_left:", ":left:" and ":slight_left:".

The result is a system that can tackle every destination traffic sign that we've encountered so far, at the expense of being super tag verbose in the most complex signs.

Feel free to deposit your feedback and opinions in English in the forum thread if you like. 

You may quickly realise upon glimpsing at the forum thread that we only talk yopaseopor and myself. That's because we are the only two users in the Catalan community that are traffic sign nerds and willing to work on their mapping and tagging.

We've had debates about traffic signs on the OSM Catalan Telegram group.
The four times we've done that in the recent weeks, there has been interest of other users to get into the traffic sign mapping once the standard is more defined; and also we hadn't received any negative nor any objections towards this standard from the Catalan community.

Your argument of these new tags being "of no use to any other data consumer" is easily defeated with these two straightforward reasons:
1) Apps that interact with traffic signs are limited and almost non-existent. The only one that I know of is the one that you've linked me on OSM DMs (and by your own admission, it doesn't support Spanish nor Catalan signs, so it doesn't affect in this case).
2) There weren't any traffic signs of any kind in Valls before my commits. This standard does not replace older traffic signs because there were none.

Of course, that all of this is of no use to any data consumer, if there aren't any data consumers to begin with!

If you want to join the conversation of this tagging scheme and deposit your opinion or provide feedback or whatever, feel free to come in the forum thread that I've linked above (you can talk in English, no worries, we don't bite)

Bones! Les etiquetes road=ring_road i ring_road=yes les he posat per marcar que aquesta relació és una ronda que encercla la ciutat.

He estat cercant per taginfo i per altres relacions de rondes d'OSM i no he trobat cap etiqueta que específicament marqui que certa relació de ruta és una ronda, així que he posat els dos ring_road per indicar-ho.

No obstant, cert és que amb un ring_road sol ja és suficient.
Així que deixa el que vulguis i l'altre esborra'l, o digue'm quin no t'agrada i l'altre l'esborraré en mun pròxim commit.

Gràcies per l'avís i disculpa les molèsties!